Comparison with Git, Mercurial or Darcs?

[Ben Finney]

"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen at xemacs.org> writes:

> Huh?  The operative constraint is that you don't do DAG surgery on a
> branch *after* that branch has been shared.  Until then, there's no
> problem.  So when I want to share a repo that I do DAG surgery on, I
> make a copy.

Well, this is where you and I came in, I think: we've discussed history
alteration in the past, and I just don't see the attraction. I'm in the
position of saying “but Bazaar can meet that need with operation ‘foo
bar baz’” to any use case, which is probably missing the point but
doesn't mean I am any closer to appreciating the purpose of DAG surgery.

So, I'm happy to leave it at that this time around: I can't speak
properly to the pros and cons of Darcs's approach in this area, because
I don't understand the attraction of changing recorded history. I do
know that Bazaar's default approach — that history is pretty much
inviolate, and not a valid target of casual surgery — preserves what I
care about in a VCS.

-- 
 \          “When we talk to God, we're praying. When God talks to us, |
  `\         we're schizophrenic.” —Jane Wagner, via Lily Tomlin, 1985 |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney